Special Counsel Independence Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the American people because I truly believe that when it comes to the national security of this Nation, we are of one belief, one faith, and singularly committed to the security of each and every American. I know that because our hearts break when any of our men and women fall in battle while wearing that uniform.

I have spent a lot of time with families who have lost loved ones throughout the wars that have occurred during my tenure in the United States Congress. I have been to the veterans' cemetery. I have joined my neighbors on Memorial Day. I have held my own Memorial Day commemoration for at least the last 5 years. Neighbors have come out from all over the community to honor those who live and served our Nation, but those who have fallen as well.

I believe it is important, then, to evidence in your congressional work as well as evidence in this country, through the leaders who are serving this Nation, being truthful as well as diplomatic. I have no quarrel with the issues of diplomacy.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the idea of diplomacy. I believe that even your enemies deserve the opportunity to explain themselves.

So, as Secretary Tillerson had mentioned some months ago, he was interested in some encounter with North Korea. He described that it would take some time and that some initial meetings make sense.

We have not been able to change the minds of the North Koreans and their attitudes toward nuclear proliferation for decades, though we came close during the time of President William Jefferson Clinton, but counsel advised him not to go further. I am sure he reflects on that. All of us wonder. That was with the father, Kim Jong-un.

Diplomacy is a reputable and reasonable approach to safeguard and secure the American people. I have taken on the responsibility as someone who has served on the Homeland Security Committee since the heinous, tragic terrorist act of 9/11--and I now serve on the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, having served on the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee as chair, and on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee--and I share the importance of our national security.

Now, as the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, where it is important as well to assess the threats against United States, I have come to believe the importance of developing an expertise in these national security issues so that we can share with our constituents and also advocate here in the Congress what more we should be doing. I truly believe that we should be doing more.

So, before I frame the complete aspects of my discussion that will involve Trump and the need to protect the independence of the special counsel, but, more importantly, Trump and Russia and the intertwining of the highest office in the land and the actions of Putin's Russia and the actions of Vladimir Putin, most of us have known the idea of the Soviet Union and Russia for most of our lives. Russia is somewhat of a new phenomena, as the Soviet Union was broken up. The memories of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain and the idea of an insulated, frightening, frozen land that did not allow any of its subjects, including the many countries that came under the Soviet Union, to speak a word, silent or not, against the government, was a fearsome and fearful place.

If history recounts, that was the Cold War. That was a moment in time for schoolchildren taking cover under. That was the time of President Kennedy's actions and almost the brink of war with Khruschchev. Those were moments the American people could understand. They demanded that the United States not be frail or a failure against Russia.

I do not ignore World War II, when Russia was a collaborator in the efforts of the allies. I don't ignore that. But after that time, it was their choice to stand up against the world and to stand up in a frightening way until the doors seemingly began to crack open.

I, for one, as a student, welcomed and cherished that possibility that Russia would turn to democratic ways--at least, ways of giving opportunity to its people, giving them free speech, giving them the ability to make decisions for themselves, and to vote in fair elections.

For a period of time, that was seemingly the direction that they were going after President Reagan said: ``Tear down that wall.''

What a bright light. I think it is important to note these Republican and Democratic Presidents who understood what our role was and is.

What is America's role?

If you travel in the most limited way, no matter what continent you go to, you will find that the people of the continent look to America for hope, for the standard bearer of democracy and human rights.

And if no one else turns on the light and shines it on the dastardly behavior of the despotic leaders, they can always count on America to make a difference.

That is what I have grown to know as a Member of the United States Congress. That is the side of the line on which I have stood. Not out of anger, not out of disregarding the differences of world leaders, but of recognizing what America's responsibility is and how disappointed and hurt I am that we find ourselves perplexed.

The world is perplexed. Ask any diplomatic traveler coming back from any conference, country, meeting, outside

of the United States. Do a poll at the international airports from New York to Washington to Houston. They will tell you that the world asks: What in the world is going on? Because, for one, they don't have that voice of reason in the United States foreign policy coming out of the White House. They do not see that standard bearer of standing up for human rights and women's rights, of understanding their plight. And in particular, they don't understand why our voice is silence.

Now, let me compliment many of the former members of Cabinets, going as far back, I guess, as Reagan and beyond, who are still speaking about our true values, of the whole issue of dealing with those who are evil and confronting them outright. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we turn toward every moment. We all have our differences of opinion on the Iraq war and Afghanistan, although we never disagree on the blood that was shed by our soldiers and those who are on the battle line. We ask the question: What was the ultimate result?

But still, people, even in those times of consternation, they said, well, America was trying to do right, trying to bring democracy or stability or speaking out against the despotic leaders and not shying away from doing that. They were speaking out against Saddam, Gaddafi, without any embarrassment. They weren't congratulating them on their elections. They were acknowledging, from the continent of Africa, to Asia-Pacific, to South and Central America, to the halls of Eastern Europe and beyond, and any other place I have not mentioned, that America would comment, either in the United Nations or elsewhere, on its disappointment on how countries treated their people.

Before this recess wherein we will be working with our constituents, we were working very hard to do one thing. Not to undermine the executive branch. There are three branches of government. I pride myself in the acceptance of the Constitution, I guess because my predecessor was the Honorable Barbara Jordan. She trained us well, as she held up that book during the Watergate proceedings, that this was not personal; it was that she was not going to see the Constitution and the rights of the people diminished.

That is where I stand today. This is not a personal commentary on the executive, meaning the branch that is called the executive, or a commentary on the branch that is the legislature or the judiciary, but it is a critique, and it is to recognize that they have failed.

And so I was disappointed when there was no bill dealing with the protection of the special counsel, Special Counsel Mueller in this instance, but this bill is not directed toward a name. It is to ensure that, if we select a special counsel, there be the guidelines and protections that do not subject that office to the whims and personalities of those who feel, ``I am being investigated.'' Wouldn't all of us like to be able to stand and block anyone who makes us uncomfortable?

My bill, H.R. 3654, will now be at the desk for a discharge petition. It is a simple bill that is not an angry bill. It is to limit the removal of a special counsel and for other purposes. It complements the bill of Mr. Cohen of Tennessee. His bill deals with the after-review of a firing. H.R. 3654 deals with the initial attempt to fire, so as not to disrupt the investigation.

What would be required is that this individual would have the opportunity, if they were sought to be removed, to file an action in the district court, only if the Attorney General would do so, the district court of the District of Columbia, and file a contemporaneous notice of action with the Committee of the Judiciary in the House and Senate. Therefore, the court would have to determine whether there was cause for this individual to be removed, and that cause would include misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause in violation of the policies of the Department of Justice--simple, not punitive, but factual.

There was no reason why the omnibus could not have included a simple summary or a simple statement of that fact. One would argue, or one would raise the question: Why?

Well, the question is well explained. The most immediate are the rumblings coming from the White House and the White House counsel about Director Mueller's investigation should end; Director Mueller is conducting a witch hunt; Director Mueller has 13, or whatever number, Democrats and no Republicans; Director Mueller is, in essence, not doing what he is supposed to do.

I would take issue with that, and I would take issue because the investigation started with the collusion question with the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, the heightened question has grown exponentially since the beginning of the current Presidential administration. It has grown in such a way that it causes you to have a number of questions.

The intelligence community, in January of 2017, stated that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

I applaud the omnibus bill, for it enhanced, by millions of dollars, the amount, which I supported, that will be used for election security in 2018. It is confirmed that the Russians are continuing their interference and, as well, that they plan to continue it in 2018 and 2020.

As we well know, the company based in Europe that snatched and used the technology of Facebook and the data of millions and millions of Americans in an abusive manner and to skew the election toward one candidate versus another--in this instance, the Trump campaign--we know that that is still an open book. The company still exists. We know as well, even though the CEO was suspended, to the applause of the CEO and leader of Facebook, who has expressed his concern, that this is still a real possibility. We look forward to Mr. Zuckerberg engaging with the United States Congress and also the creativity to deal with that crisis.

But the ICA, intelligence community, assesses that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016--let me be very clear, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election--not stood by as a leader of a particular nation and ignored, if you will, the individuals who were doing it but, in fact, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate the former Secretary of State, and harm her electability and potential Presidency.

The intelligence community further assesses that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for our President- elect, who is now the President of the United States. The ICA has high confidence in these judgments.

The intelligence community also assesses Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help elect the present President and to increase that President-elect's chances, Mr. Trump, when possible, by discrediting the former Secretary of State and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

Now we know Putin has been attempting to do this for a long time. In 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in truly despicable acts for many years. But since before the election and over his time in office, the President has never criticized him.

Now, the basis of not criticizing another head of state is not the basis of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and I am glad of that. Because you disagree with a personality or someone's behavior, that is not what should be the basis of any investigation. But let me give you what the special counsel has accomplished in the time that he has been engaged in the work that he was assigned to do.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I think I was in the middle of saying that, because of different personalities or the different way that an individual leads, that is not the basis of anyone having to be investigated.

I was talking earlier about The Translator Project. We know that Mr. Putin has been attempting to intrude in our elections for a very long time, and in 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project. This is the Russian Government's campaign, not the campaign of the United States, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple.

They, obviously, were more than successful in the 2016 election. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in--I said this before, but it is worth repeating--truly despicable acts for many years.

I just paused for a moment to say that many people don't realize the kind of direct involvement that Vladimir Putin has over the most minute things happening in Russia as it pushes out to what is perceived as Russia's enemies.

The Russian people are wonderful people. I look forward always to engaging with them. There is a large Russian population in Texas and all over the Nation. We welcome them who have come, some fleeing persecution, others in other matters. But I think it is important to note that there are Russian spies here in the United States every day trying to co-opt and turn an American citizen to work for them.

Tragically, there were any number of individuals, seemingly, that wound up in the campaign of Mr. Trump that warrants investigation by Mr. Mueller.

These despicable behaviors are not just with elections, because elections are won and lost. We don't like losing elections. But if we do lose them, we like to lose them fair and square. When you run for President of the United States, you run on your own merits, your own strategy, your own outreach, your own missteps and mishaps. But how impossible is it to run when a foreign nation is conspicuously, with money, collaborating and working to skew the election to one candidate versus another?

Now, let me be very clear. This is not looking backwards. Nothing I say today will alter who the President is of the United States, and as Americans, we adhere to the order of government, regular order. That gives me such great pride that we are not a nation that marches up to the home of the executive and asks--or not asks--but demands that person leave in a coup d'etat. That is not the American way. But it does bear well that we know who we are dealing with, and that we are honest about the fact that the election was turned and won on a simple fact, not three States, or not--I didn't go there--not who is a blue collar and who is not--because I love all of the people. It was squarely skewed because of the direct intrusion of Vladimir Putin and his data. And the question is: What kind of collusion, collaboration, or criminal elements happened?

But in the course of those kinds of actions, I would make the point on my comment about truly despicable acts. How do you welcome, guarantee, give applause to an individual whom I am glad to say that the former President Obama stared down in the midst of our election and said, ``Cut it out,'' cut it out from interfering in our elections? And from the words and the reaction of Mr. Putin, I didn't see a denial. I didn't see a: Hey, let's sit down and talk about it; if you think I am doing this, let me find out who is doing this in my country and I am putting a stop to it immediately.

None of that happened. It continued to intrude, and skew, and manipulate the data of millions of Americans of what they were receiving on Facebook, and many others who were getting poison pills in their inboxes about the election, skewed against the former Secretary of State.

It never stopped. But at the same time, the ions and ions of persons who disappear in Russia, who are imprisoned in Russia, and the individuals, the long list of individuals who have been poisoned, I have met with some of them; miraculously, even one who was poisoned and survived, was still fighting for human rights, went back again, and, as my memory serves me, was poisoned again.

But his passion for civil rights and human rights and saving Russia, the beautiful Russia that he loved, and bringing her into the 21st century, made him drive toward the danger.

But what about right now in the last 2 months? Not on Russian soil, but on our friend's, Great Britain, in London, two Russians: one a father, one a daughter. The daughter left Russia to celebrate or to visit her father. Poisonous gas took them down. Took them down. No mea culpa. No comment.

I thank Prime Minister May for standing up and saying, eye-to-eye: You will not do this in my country. I believe it is important for our foreign policy to be both diplomatic but forceful. For if you are in meetings with Russians who are able to speak openly, they will tell you that Vladimir Putin listens to nothing but power. Not any glad-handing, and I am a genius, and he is a genius, and he called me a genius. He doesn't respond to that. He only responds to looking you in the eye and showing that you have power.

And as I just heard over the last couple of days, most of the Russian people don't have internet. They can only hear what is given to them. They don't see what is going on. And they are living in their world without the exposure to the beauty of democracy, the beauty of human rights, and women's rights, and the freedom to go anywhere I want to go. And they get their thrills through what is told to them, to maybe the wins and losses in an Olympic game, or the exploits and expeditions of their leader who they just voted for. Maybe that is the level of their excitement. I don't believe, however, that we as Americans can fall into that trap.

In the instance of the Commander in Chief, he refuses to criticize the geopolitical belligerence of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. And to add insult to injury, just this week, as I indicated, here comes a congratulations on an election that many observers of elections admit was rigged. I think we all saw a video where it looked like someone was stuffing the ballot box. I have no reason to know why it was stuffed, but the opponent was popular that was running, but, of course, that opponent did not win.

But I just step back for a moment on despicable acts. I have been to Ukraine. It broke my heart to see the war that was going on, Russian- backed rebels, and to have the representation that the small part did not want to be in Ukraine, so Vladimir Putin was not going to encourage the unity of Ukraine. They were going to implode Ukraine. Let them fight. But how sad that he was never held accountable for the shooting down of a civilian airplane full of hopeful travelers, baby shoes, and suitcases of hopes and dreams.

That is what we are contending with. And that is why the overall investigation of Director Mueller is not personal. It is not purposely chosen to pick on an executive that someone does not like. It is done for the integrity of this Nation.

Let me tell you how we can look back over more recent actions. Russia occupied cities in the Republic of Georgia in 2008. They have imprisoned and suppressed journalists and dissidents. They have been so brazen so as to use, as I just said, a nerve agent, a chemical weapon on the soil of our great ally, a true partner for peace and progress.

Look at the actions that we took, including Russia, in Syria when the charges were using a nerve gas. What deadly silence from this executive, this administration, except for some other line officers-- not lying, line, l-i-n-e--who probably said some things. They were obstructive in President Obama's efforts to bring peace in the devastating civil war in Syria by propping up Assad, which had killed untold numbers of people, including so many innocent children. That gas was used many years ago.

In an even greater escalation, they launched a missile at a civilian passenger plane, killing 298 on board, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as I said.

While they were doing all this, the Russians were impervious to criticism, beyond reproach, as far as they were concerned. Power is what they understand, firmness and sternness, and a solid policy. Oh, we will negotiate. We will deal with diplomacy, but you have to stop your bad behavior.

While they were doing all this, people were suffering. In 2011, Russians went to the polls for seats in the Duma. After the election, there were allegations and questions surrounding the integrity of the vote. This soon turned to

protest. Mr. Putin, for some bizarre reason, blamed the former Secretary of State for this. This has been a grudge he has held against her, and he was committed to doing anything to destroy her.

The former Secretary has said before on the floor of the Chamber--or I have said--she is a stateswoman. If the words that she provided gave any comfort to those protesting, that is fair game. There were no weapons. There was no nerve gas. It was people clamoring and holding on to positive words by a person of status during the time of her leadership that what was happening in Russia was wrong.

And the reaction of President Putin should have been, let me move my nation into the 21st century, let me not attack a woman of stature and excellence, a true public servant. Because she was not shy to point out injustices and improper behavior, which we should do for despots around the world.

While she was Secretary of State, this body passed and Obama signed the Magnitsky Act which imposed sanctions on many Russian oligarchs, long overdue. 2013 was a big year for the United States' relationship with Russia. It was in 2013 that Secretary Clinton left her post. Also in 2013, a company named the Internet Research Agency registered in Russia, and they are a social media troll farm. The IRA would form the basis of the translator project announced in April 2014.

The IRA's job is to spread disinformation and misinformation through fake social media profiles. They were at their peak in the 2016 election. This was done in order to manipulate public opinion and engage in information warfare.

Later that year, the present President decides to have a beauty pageant. While in Moscow in November 2013, Donald Trump meets with Agalarov and Rob Goldstein in order to try to build a tower in Moscow. The sanctions President Barack Obama imposed following Russia's annexation of Crimea stopped the Trump Tower deal.

How dare anyone say that the past administration was weak on Russia. Yes, power is what they understand. But it has to be a persistent, determined power, not power that is stopped by a new election. I assume this was not a happy time for those who wanted that Trump Tower.

While this was going on, the present President is developing a track record, trafficking conspiracy theories for his birtherism, the ugly smear that Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, was not born in the United States, and, therefore, was ineligible to be President.

I watched this smear through videos and interviews, and just to the point that many of you recall, that in the midst of his Presidency-- only because he desired to do so--President Barack Obama showed his birth certificate. What an ugly attack.

I was also there at the television, radio, and journalists event when both President Obama and the present President were there. When the President--with a sense of humor--had a video played of ``Lion King'' and said to the laughing audience: There is my birth place.

I am glad he had a sense of humor, but it was an ugly attack on a legitimate President of the United States who will have a wonderful history to look back on.

The present President rode this lie of his birth--President Obama's birth and concluded he could use it to win the Republican nomination for President, so he announced it. And in that announcement, he dismisses Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists.

Everyone has all kinds of people as their neighbors, and who would ever say that?

But shortly after his announcement, questions about his connections to Russia continued. It is right around then, in September 2015, the Democratic National Committee is told that its computers have been hacked.

Despite all the information that we knew and, more importantly, all the information that only Donald Trump knew, he continued to deny any involvement with Russia.

Meantime, corporations were gathering the information of Americans through Facebook and poisoning the well, and sending biting, wrongheaded misinformation to many voters all over the Midwest and elsewhere.

While he was denying his connections to Russia, we now know that agents working with this President, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, were trying yet again to build a tower in Moscow.

Let me repeat this fact. While he was actively running for President of the United States, there were business agents actively pursuing a real estate project in Russia and denying it.

As I have said in my commentary, it is well known that the only thing that Vladimir Putin understands is power; and any time you are going to beg, you can be assured he will use that against you or use that to manipulate you and anyone else that is associated with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the safety and security of the American people. This Congress should be concerned. Republicans should be concerned. Today, I said that the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is not a red line being drawn or a blue line. It is red, white, and blue lines, which represent the American people.

None of us should, for political reasons, attempt to quash the truth. And the truth about Mr. Putin is all he wants is power, and all he wants is to dominate the democracy and the greatest democracy in the world, and to quash the leadership position that America holds, and the admiration that the world has for America, and the desire for most of the world not to be Russia, but to be America. And all we do is fuel his ability by subordinating ourselves to him, his so-called greatness, his phony election, and his tampering with our election.

This is a difficult time. Many of you remember the name of General Flynn. He was a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and one of his most unfortunate episodes was his time at the Republican National Convention, shouting ``Lock Her Up, Lock Her Up.''

That might be the core reason why some of my colleagues, even today, are sneaking through a subpoena to try and sneak through and bring back documents to attack the former Secretary again, a unilateral subpoena, not one that was joined in or even asked to be joined in by Democrats and Republicans. That is unfortunate because we have never, in the Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas without a vote.

But now, to make havoc because of the very fine work of Special Counsel Mueller, it is going to be a tit for tat. So here we are with the tit for tat.

But if we recall, in December 2015, Mr. Flynn went to Moscow, sat at a dinner with Mr. Putin and Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party candidate, to mark the 10-year anniversary of RT, the Russian TV. Just months later, in February 2016, the Translator Project, the endeavor to weaponize social media information revealed their theme, to support a number of candidates and to ruin the former Secretary.

March 2016 was a critical month, too. March 2016 was the month when the campaign manager of the former Secretary had his emails hacked. March 2016 was also when the present President had a meeting of his national security team. Present was this famous man, George Papadopoulos, unfortunately, one of those indicted, sitting in a famous meeting of great leaders for national security and foreign affairs. He was a foreign affairs aide and even mentioned publicly as a great mind of foreign affairs by the present President.

But in May of 2016, he got drunk, a little inebriated at a London wine bar and told a diplomat of a friendly country of ours that the Russians had dirt on the former Secretary.

Then, in June 2016, we have the infamous Trump Tower meeting, where operatives of the Trump campaign were told about derogatory information about Russia, and one of them said, famous words: ``I love it.''

At the GOP convention, the GOP actually changed its platform to be more friendly to Russia, a foreign despotic power that is aggressive around the world, that has shot down airplanes, support rebels to undermine governments, and even prop up the leader in Syria as people die in the streets.

It is a question of how a Republican platform at their convention, quite contrary to all of what most know of Republicans, to be friendly, and have a friendly pro-Russian platform, and friendly to a Ukraine that would oppress her people.

Then, after another operative name appears on foreign logs, that person resigned from the campaign. Another Trump associate encourages WikiLeaks to hack the Clinton emails. We know this because we have heard of direct messages between WikiLeaks and operatives of the Trump campaign. Their names are famous.

Even predicted that leaders of the former Secretary's campaign would have their time in the barrel. This tweet was sent on the same day as the infamous Access Hollywood tape, where Trump boasted about actions that all of us find appalling.

The election happens in the backdrop of the poisonous emails, the tampering by Russia, the spewing out of millions of Facebook connections, skewing the election, and the person they wanted to win wins. Yet, even after the election, the connections to Russia do not stop.

Rather than using the power that Putin needs to see from the United States to protect the American people, we just fall into the molasses and continue to throw sugar on this leader. We hire the National Security Advisor, who was sitting at the table with Mr. Putin. In some way related to advocating for Mr. Putin's high level of respect in the country, he was accused of lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians. When that news was made public, he was fired.

In between, of course, a person known as a public servant with no other agenda but to serve in the Department of Justice briefed the President of that information and other information 2 or 3 weeks before. They ultimately were fired, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and it took a long time for there to be an acknowledgment to fire the National Security Advisor.

Don't you think Mr. Putin watches this and says, Boy are we successful? Boy, are we doing well?

We are not only inside the White House; we are entrenched.

After the former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections between the present President and the Kremlin, that same person who had offered a letter regarding the former Secretary a couple of days out of the election, an unheard action, and no pronouncement was made about other investigations regarding the present President, but, unfortunately, he was fired.

I want to pause for a moment. I have said that this cannot be about personalities or who has wronged one person or the other. I disagree with General Sessions. I disagree with his blocking of real, fair, criminal justice reform, his opposing civil rights, his supporting bad voter ID laws, his eliminating community consent decrees, and his attack on cities because they don't want to harm innocent families labeled the city as sanctuary cities.

But I would not hold to the position of supporting his firing, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution. The law and the Constitution will be undermined if, for some reason, during this recess, while the special counsel is doing their in-depth work, that the Attorney General is fired, an interim appointment is made, that person fires the Deputy Attorney General, may fire the FBI Director, and may fire the special counsel. That is the midnight massacre of the 21st century, 2018.

I hope it does not happen. I hope that we, as members of the Judiciary Committee, today, in our press conference, have put the White House on notice; even though I understand now that one of the White House lawyers, Mr. Dowd, who was known as the reasonable lawyer, just resigned. That frightens me even more.

What more is going to happen? What else is going to be our lot?

That is why we have the discharge position on Mr. Cohen's bill and my bill, and my members will be getting letters to join those two bills together and sign them upon their return; though they can also ask their office to sign them, or they can be signed during the pro forma session.

This is the journey that we have taken. After former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections, I have said that, we note that that FBI Director was fired.

Thereafter, the special counsel was appointed because that is what you call obstruction of justice possibly. The special counsel was appointed to begin his investigation around that firing.

But if anyone understands prosecutors and special counsel, they can go where the facts lead them because they do not work for any elected officials. They work for the American people.

The special counsel was threatened by termination, as reported by the President, only to have this move blocked by the White House Counsel. Early in his tenure he was threatened with termination.

Last summer, the President indicated the special counsel should keep his family's private business dealings out of the investigation. Red line.

This month, Mr. Mueller subpoenaed business records from the Trump organization implicating the President's red line on the issue. This news coincides with an increase in erratic behavior, tweets. But most importantly, one of the lawyers saying, yes, it should end. He should be closed down.

The House Intelligence Committee singly, not in a bipartisan manner, decided to shut down the Russia investigation without any consultation with our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic members.

Just as I indicated, a subpoena may be being issued by Republicans of my committee, the Judiciary, with no consultation of Democrats. We don't know what Mr. Mueller may discover, but we do know that there has been much discussion on a number of operatives.

We also know that the minority had to release their own report for the House Intelligence Committee. In the opening paragraph, it says: ``The HPSCI majority's move to release to the House of Representatives allegations against the FBI and the Department of Justice is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel and Congress' investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.''

It goes on to say: ``DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA's probable cause requirement, by demonstrating: Contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference''--I am reading from an unclassified document concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials--``Page's history with Russian intelligence''--and that, we would assume, would be Carter Page--and Carter ``Page's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.''

These are all individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign.

It further says: Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.''

By the way, it reinforces my statement that they were investigating the Trump campaign. No one bothered to offer that in a public setting. That was seemingly unimportant to the American voters.

But this document is unclassified, and most Members have had a chance to peruse it, as I have done, and, frankly, it is tied up into our weak response to the despotism of Vladimir Putin.

So as I said, this is not about a personality challenge. It is important to take note of the fact that we have an obligation, just as the Cold War Presidents had an obligation, to protect the American people at what they perceived to be an attack from the Soviet Union, although they collaborated in World War II, the attitude changed. The people were frozen in time.

Those Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, although they did not clamor to go to war--and I, by no means, in this commentary today, in any way, am suggesting any form of war dealing with Russia. It is, though, saying that power must be met with power. Sanctions must be kept, and sanctions must be strong, and strong words must be clear.

Mr. Putin, your interfering with the elections and the desires and the decisions of the American people will stop. Your intelligence agencies and your operatives will be booted out, en masse, of the United States, and your attack, if you will, on individuals attempting to secure them as agents will cease.

I have every confidence in the intelligence community of this Nation. I do not look at them as political or partisan. From Mr. Clapper to Mr. Brennan, formerly, and to those who serve us now, their job is to tell the truth. In

fact, even those in the Trump administration, in the intelligence community, have enthusiastically and loudly declared that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, and they may and are preparing to do so in the 2018 election and 2020.

So the President's private behavior and efforts to cover it up have now generated three separate lawsuits. I don't particularly call upon that as a crucial element, except for those of us who know security and intelligence issues. Anything that can weaken you makes you vulnerable to individuals who need your information or need you to work for them. That is a well-known fact. If it is not well known, go to any spy movie and know that the vulnerability is what your operatives attack.

Now we have no fewer than three separate lawsuits dealing with his inappropriate behavior. In each case, his exposure grows. A particularly unseemly aspect of this silencing campaign is the enforcement of onerous nondisclosure agreements. So we will see a long journey of these particular items, these particular individuals coming before the cameras.

But I do want to say that there are women across the Nation who may not have this high-profile perpetrator, and I want to say to them and to the athletes who told their story in a Michigan courtroom that the Me Too movement is not temporary and fleeting, and the Me Too movement will continue to embrace you and secure you and safeguard you, and we hope that you will continue to do and tell the truth so that you can be healed and that you can be heard.

Over the last couple of days, the constant berating--constant berating of this special counsel has been frivolous, and let me tell you why. Although the special counsel has since indicted--or let me rephrase that. The special counsel is not doing frivolous work. The special counsel has since indicted three companies and 19 individuals, including the President's former National Security Advisor, his former campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman, and secured guilty pleas from five individuals, including three senior members of the Trump campaign. Trump continues to decry the special counsel's investigation as a hoax.

Republican colleagues would not even allow simple language in the omnibus bill to protect the special counsel to allow him to do his work; although, Trey Gowdy has indicated that his work should go on. And then, to attempt to suggest that the special counsel is going after him personally as a Republican, a Democrat, or that it is a witch hunt, I argue vigorously against it.

We need to find out the truth about Russia. We need to find out the truth about those who are surrounding this administration. We need to have an administration, whether it is his or anyone else, to be pure in their commitment to the American people. And the truth should come out, and no one, regardless of their party affiliation, should try to undermine Special Counsel Mueller.

So I would make the argument: We leave on a recess; we are on our phones; we are on our emails ready to launch back to Washington to respond to any constitutional crisis; but over and above that issue, though that is juxtaposed right alongside, is the plea to this administration that we cannot and you cannot adhere to two leaders or two bosses. Either you adhere to the boss of the American people, whose safety and security are in your hands, or you play footsies with a dictator who is not unwilling to kill his own citizens with nerve gas on foreign soil.

Which will you choose, to be associated with this person who has wounded his own nation with human rights violations, women's rights violations, with an economy, with people locked up in jail, with family members who can never be found, with poisoning his own citizens, or are you going to stand with the American people and the men and women in the United States military who are on the front lines every day fighting against those despots and standing for the American people?

That is what we need to hear. And until we hear something different-- and a mea culpa about the 2016 election, no one should put their hands on Director Mueller. All I can say is that his work should continue. I should not be involved with it; committees should not be involved with it; other leaders should not be involved with it.

Mr. Mueller should proceed with his work. It is painful. All of us would say so. But, frankly, it is the red, white, and blue. It is on behalf of the American people, Mr. Speaker.

And with that and my plea for power towards Mr. Putin on behalf of the American people and for dignity for this President on behalf of the American people, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, for the past several days, there has been an organized attempt to discredit and undermine the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I rise today to speak on behalf of many Members of Congress who believe Special Counsel Mueller is doing a great job.

At this time, I am circulating a letter, and other Members of Congress are joining me. This is a letter of support for Special Counsel Mueller urging that he not be interfered with and that he is allowed to continue this very important investigation in the interest of the security of our country.

I will be circulating this letter for another 24 hours. However, at this time, I would like to read the contents of the letter into the Record. This, again, is a letter in support of Special Counsel Mueller. The letter is addressed to the Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.

The letter reads as follows:

Dear Deputy Attorney General,

We write to express our support for the work of Special

Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and to urge you to ensure

that he be allowed to continue his investigation--unfettered

by political influence or threats to his authority--to its

natural and appropriate conclusion based on the law, the

facts, and the evidence.

The Special Counsel is Conducting a Methodical

Investigation, Yielding Results.

It is unimaginable that Republicans would seek to

intervene, discredit, obstruct, or terminate the special

counsel's investigation. Thus far, from every public

indication, it appears that Mr. Mueller is conducting a

thorough and methodical investigation. He and his

investigators have not sought, and instead avoided, the

public spotlight. His team has not leaked or hinted at

criminal allegations for which they have yet to develop

charges. Furthermore, the charges that have been filed to

date have been sufficiently strong and well founded as to

elicit guilty pleas from President Donald Trump's former

National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn,

and a former policy adviser to Donald Trump's Presidential

campaign, George Papadopoulos.

The Appointment of a Special Counsel Was Necessary and

Proper.

As you know, pursuant to U.S. Department of Justice Order

Number 3915-2017, which you issued on May 17, 2017, Mr.

Mueller was appointed to serve as special counsel and

authorized to conduct an investigation into matters,

``including any links and/or coordination between the Russian

Government and individuals associated with the campaign of

President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may

arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters

within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4(a),'' which includes

``authority to investigate and prosecute Federal crimes

committed in the course of, and

with intent to interfere with, the special counsel's

investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice,

destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.''

Your decision to appoint a special counsel to conduct such

an investigation was necessary and proper, given the U.S.

intelligence community's assessment that ``Russian President

Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at

the U.S. Presidential election, the consistent goals of which

were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic

process'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government

developed a clear preference for President Trump''; the

obvious potential that individuals, who had served on

President Donald J. Trump's campaign, as well as individuals

currently serving as political appointees in the Trump

administration, could be targets of, or witnesses in, any

such investigation; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions

recused himself from ``any matters related in any way to the

campaigns for President of the United States.''

The Selection of Robert S. Mueller III to Serve As Special

Counsel Was Very Much Appropriate.

Under the circumstances described above, your selection of

Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel to conduct the

investigation was an appropriate and commendable decision.

Mr. Mueller has earned a reputation as a nonpartisan,

professional investigator, making him an ideal choice to lead

the investigation into the highly important, complex, and

sensitive matters to which he has been charged. Mr. Mueller's

record demonstrates that he would not allow bias, influence,

or other extraneous considerations to impact his

investigation, and any suggestion otherwise is just not

credible.

Mr. Mueller is a former Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, FBI, who was originally appointed by a

Republican President. He was vetted and, twice, unanimously

confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, when appointed in 2001

by President George W. Bush, Mueller was confirmed as FBI

Director by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate, and when Mueller

was nominated for a second term, in 2011, during President

Barack Obama's administration, he was again unanimously

confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

Mr. Mueller has earned bipartisan support. Republican

Members of the Senate attested to Mr. Mueller's integrity and

professionalism during Mr. Mueller's confirmation hearings,

which took place on July 30 and 31, 2001. For example, with

regard to Mr. Mueller's nomination to serve as FBI Director,

then Senator, now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stated:

``It is great to see Mr. Mueller, nominated to take one of

the most important positions in our country. It is a position

that requires, in my view, serious experience, great

integrity, and a proven record of accomplishment. And you

have all of those things, Robert Mueller. When I was in the

Department of Justice, Robert Mueller's reputation was known

throughout the Department of Justice, and he was known not

for any political reason, but because he was recognized as a

professional's professional, a man whose skill at doing the

job assigned to him was second to none. There is no doubt in

my mind that there is no more professional prosecutor, no

more professional person in America with experience in the

Department of Justice, ready to handle the job of FBI

Director than Robert Mueller.''

Likewise, Senator Mitch McConnell stated: ``I believe Mr.

Mueller will provide strong and effective leadership. Mr.

Mueller has both impressive management and law enforcement

experience. He is well-schooled in avoiding the problems and

pitfalls inherent in criminal investigations and

prosecutions. Mr. Mueller is not `of' the FBI, and therefore

I believe institutional loyalty will not blind him to making

the hard'' decision he needs to make.

Senator McConnell also expressed his belief that Mr.

Mueller's commitment ``to vigorously enforcing the law

without regard to politics or partisanship.''

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has also commented on Mr.

Mueller's lack of partisan bias. As reported in a July 24,

2017, Washington Examiner article, Speaker Ryan said: ``I

don't think many people are saying Robert Mueller is a biased

partisan. He's really, sort of, anything but.''

On October 11, 2017, Kenneth Starr, who was appointed in

1994 as the independent counsel who was tasked with

investigations involving President Bill Clinton and then

First Lady Hillary Clinton, commented on Robert Mueller and

the manner in which his investigation is proceeding. Mr.

Starr stated that Mr. Mueller is conducting his investigation

``aggressively and professionally.'' Mr. Starr also stated:

``We're not seeing `leaks' out of the investigation as far as

we know, and what we know of Bob Mueller and his background

is that he is someone of total, rock-ribbed integrity.''

Regulations Limiting the Removal of a Special Counsel Must

Be Followed.

Mr. Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation

and should not be threatened with removal. However, a few

Republicans have indicated their support for Mr. Mueller, for

his ouster. Notwithstanding the overwhelming reasons for Mr.

Mueller to be allowed to continue and complete his

investigation, the rule of law demands that the Trump

administration follow executive branch regulations, which

restrict the circumstances under which a special counsel can

be removed. Specifically, 28 CFR 600.7(d) regarding the

removal or discipline of a special counsel provides: ``The

special counsel may be disciplined or removed from office

only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The

Attorney General may remove a special counsel for misconduct,

dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for

other good cause, including violation of departmental

policies. The Attorney General shall inform the special

counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her

removal.''

Since Attorney General Sessions is recused, you, in your

capacity as acting Attorney General--that is, Mr.

Rosenstein--regarding Special Counsel Mueller's

investigation, are the only individual empowered to remove

Mr. Mueller under regulation. Furthermore, the regulation

clearly states that Mr. Mueller may only be removed for good

cause, which has not been demonstrated. The administration is

required to follow its own regulations and not remove Mr.

Mueller from his investigation.

Politically Motivated Challenges of Special Counsel Mueller

and His Investigation Must Not Be Allowed to Threaten the

Investigation.

Despite Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of

integrity, as attested to by these Republican leaders, and

despite the clear progress that Mr. Mueller is making in his

investigation, the rightwing media, some Republican Members

of Congress, and Donald Trump, himself, have attempted to

advance a false narrative that Special Counsel Mueller's

investigation is biased--this is what they say--and some have

advocated for Mr. Mueller's removal. On June 15, 2017,

referring in general terms to the Russia investigation,

President Trump stated on social media: ``You are witnessing

the single greatest witch hunt in American political

history--led by some very bad and conflicted people.''

In Congress, four Republican Members, led by Representative

Matt Gaetz and including former Representative Trent Franks,

who has now resigned amidst an Ethics Committee investigation

into his own conduct, have cosponsored a resolution calling

for Mueller to step down. Those Members have attempted to

advance baseless claims of the existence of a conflict due to

Mr. Mueller's previous service as FBI Director. Those

arguments do not have merit, and appear intended, at best, to

redirect the public's focus toward matters that are wholly

unrelated to the investigation to which Mr. Mueller has been

tasked. At worst, those arguments are intended to stop or

preemptively tarnish the perception of the special counsel's

work. The issues referenced in that Republican resolution

pertain to allegations against former President Bill Clinton

and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to

a 2009-2010 matter, which has nothing to do with Mr.

Mueller's directive to investigate ``links and/or

coordination between the Russian Government and individuals

associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.''

As quoted in a December 12, 2017, Politico article,

Representative Matt Gaetz stated that he told President Trump

that he was ``concerned'' that Mr. Mueller's investigation

``was infected with bias.'' Representative Gaetz said the

President responded: ``That's why you guys have got to do

your job.'' Representative Gaetz further stated that he

informed the President that you would be testifying--that is,

Mr. Rosenstein--before the House Judiciary Committee on

December 13, 2017, in response to which Representative Gaetz

said President Trump ``encouraged us to exercise our

oversight responsibilities.'' This conversation, as described

by Representative Gaetz, suggests that President Trump is

encouraging the ring leaders of the recent criticisms against

Mr. Mueller in order to pressure you to affect the

investigation through the congressional oversight process.

That is unacceptable.

Some have alleged that Mr. Mueller's removal of a member of

this team, Peter Strzok, over text messages sent by Mr.

Strzok that were critical of President Trump suggests bias or

a lack of objectivity on the special counsel's team. However,

upon learning of the text messages, Mr. Mueller immediately

removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation. In reality, this

incident and Mr. Mueller's swift response demonstrates Mr.

Mueller's integrity as well as his desire and commitment to

conduct an investigation that is beyond reproach.

You must not allow the targets of the investigation, or

issues being investigated, to escape thorough independent

inquiry through the removal, or hindrance, of the special

counsel. We thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for your careful

attention to this matter, and we stand ready to support you

in upholding the rule of law.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the letter that I am circulating to Mr. Rosenstein. This is the letter that is being signed on by other Members of Congress. This is the letter that I will circulate for the next 24 hours so that we will give Members the opportunity to sign on to this letter.

This letter should be on your desk very soon.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Marcy Kaptur, who signed up to speak here this evening.

Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, I thank both of the Members of Congress who came down here this evening and shared in the information that we are going to forward to Rod Rosenstein because it is so important that we let him know that our special counsel has support. We appreciate what he is doing and we are going to stand with him.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and for her leadership on this very important issue.

She is standing in the gap because all that we have heard from Republicans and their media advocates is that their intention, of course, is to create a 21st century Saturday night massacre.

In my questioning of the Deputy Attorney General, that is the exact terminology that I utilized, which is: Was the Deputy Attorney General and the Department of Justice prepared to defend Special Counsel Mueller against a potential Saturday night massacre?

Of course, that is the Watergate massacre perpetrated by President Nixon in firing the Attorney General, and then requiring and firing the special prosecutor and--getting someone to fire--literally creating a institutional crisis.

Madam Speaker, it is clear, as evidenced by the words of Sean Hannity on December 5, FOX News, who led off his broadcast with the outrageous charge that Mueller is frankly a disgrace by the American justice system and has put the country now on the brink of becoming a banana republic.

Not surprisingly, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who enthusiastically praised the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel as a superb choice to be special counsel because his reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity, has done a complete 180-degree turn and now declaims falsely that the very top at the Justice Department and the FBI have become corrupt.

I was pleased to join this letter and to join with Congresswoman Waters, along with my other colleagues, for a very important statement.

I also believe that this statement must be backed up with legislation, such as H.R. 3654, which I have offered, the Special Counsel Independence Protection Act.

But basically I think we have a situation where if we do not make this a public announcement of indicating that between the administration, the President, and others, along with Republicans in this House, there is an entrapment being set up for Special Counsel Mueller to be considered biased because of the staffing actions of which, by the way, those individuals have been replaced or they have been transferred to other positions.

There is no doubt that a man who served in Vietnam, a man who came

back to the Justice Department as an entry-level employee to be able to serve his country, there is no question that there is no evidence of any corruption.

Madam Speaker, I would conclude my remarks by saying the importance of this legislation and this letter is because Director Mueller is working his way into the White House, and the issues of Russian collusion and the issues dealing with criminality are approaching the front door. We must protect this investigation.

Madam Speaker, in recent days, the shrill but politically-charged attacks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller have reached a deafening roar.

For example, on December 5, Fox News host Sean Hannity led off his broadcast with the outrageous charge that `Mueller is frankly a disgrace to the American justice system and has put the country now on the brink of becoming a banana republic.

Not surprisingly, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who enthusiastically praised the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel as a `superb choice to be special counsel' because `his reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity' has done a complete 180-degree turn and now declaims falsely that at ``the very top, the Justice Department and the FBI became corrupted.''

These despicable accusations by Trump acolytes and ultraconservative zealots against a distinguished public servant and veteran who has served his country with honor and unimpeachable integrity for more than a half-century are outrageous.

But the public sees them for what they are: a thinly disguised attempt by a panicked White House and its right-wing media allies to inflame and persuade base Trump supporters to question the impartiality of the Special Counsel's investigation that daily uncovers more evidence of wrongdoing and collusion by operatives of the Trump campaign, transition, and White House.

In light of the barrage of baseless attacks against Special Counsel Mueller by Trump apologists and right-wing media, it is urgent that Congress act immediately to protect the independence and integrity of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, including questions surrounding collusion between Russian operatives and Trump campaign officials.

That is why I am calling upon the House leadership to bring H.R. 3654, the `Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,' to the floor for debate and a vote by the full House at the earliest time possible.

This legislation, which I introduced on August 15, 2017, insulates the Special Counsel from the whims of this President by permitting the removal of the Special Counsel only where:

The attorney general files an action in federal district court in Washington, D.C., and files a contemporaneous action with the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee; and

A panel of three federal judges sitting in Washington, D.C., finds removal appropriate based on a finding of misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause.

We are on the verge of a constitutional crisis as Trump operatives try to dismantle, destroy, and undermine Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.

This cannot be allowed to happen.

The state of our democracy hinges upon our ability to ensure the integrity of our elections and the rule of law.

And the necessary and ongoing work of the Special Counsel must be insulated against outside influence and interference.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, and an original co-sponsor, I rise today to urge all Members to support and cosponsor H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

When we were here in March, before the Easter Recess, I indicated that firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not be crossing a Red Line.

It would not be crossing a Blue Line.

It would be crossing a Red, White, and Blue line.

I have been concerned about this issue for a very long time--to me it was clear in August, and every day that passes is another where my first instincts about the President's desire to fire Special Counsel Mueller, are confirmed.

The importance of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, and the nature and extent of Russia's interference, cannot be overstated.

The allegation that a foreign government--hostile or otherwise-- played any part in the internal democratic processes of our country should shock every single American citizen.

It strikes at the heart of our democratic system of government.

We must come to terms with the fact that our very last national election is a crime scene.

The 2018 election could be one, too.

It was critical then, it is critical now, and it will be critical tomorrow that the Special Counsel be permitted to do his work unimpeded.

That is why last August I introduced H.R. 3654, ``Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,'' which precludes the firing of the Special Counsel absent of substantial evidence, that there exists good cause to do so, and that determination accepted by a three-judge federal court.

H.R. 3654 has the support of 152 cosponsors and is also the subject of a discharge petition, and 144 members of the House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition.

I thank my colleagues who have supported H.R. 3654, to protect the Special Counsel's investigation recognizing that nothing less than our sovereignty, our democratic ideals, and our national dignity are at stake.

Today, I announce my support for new legislation protecting the Special Counsel, H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act,'' introduced by Ranking Member Nadler, myself, and Mr. Cohen.

I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the core of my legislation to protect the Special Counsel.

The Nadler-Jackson Lee-Cohen bill constrains the Attorney General from damaging the Special Counsel's investigation, absent judicial ratification of any action to terminate the Special Counsel.

Under H.R. 5476, the judicial branch--yet another check on an unwieldy executive--would determine if the termination was appropriate.

The necessity of enacting this legislation is clear.

Seven times this year, the President has decried the investigation as a ``witch hunt,'' including yesterday.

The New York Times has reported that the President has tried at least twice in 2017 to fire Special Counsel Mueller--once in June 2017, and once again in December 2017.

Now, this morning he is claiming, again over Twitter, that reports that he wanted to fire Special Counsel Mueller were more ``fake news.''

On Monday, after news that his lawyer's residence and offices were raided, the President openly mused, at a gathering of his war cabinet, about firing Special Counsel Mueller.

On Tuesday, the President asserted that he had the power to fire Special Counsel Mueller.

Yesterday on Twitter, the President called Special Counsel Mueller ``the most conflicted of all.''

He is wrong.

Last night, he advertised a program on his favorite cable network, and when that show aired, it consisted of a derogatory piece against the president's chief investigators: former FBI Director Comey and Special Counsel Mueller.

Last month, the President twice said he opposed the investigation, told an untruth about the political composition of the prosecutors in the Special Counsel's office, and has reiterated that it should never have been started.

Given the actions of the current President, it is appropriate to ask whether stronger legislation is needed.

But H.R. 5476 is an important compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We must step back and take off our partisan hats and approach this as Americans.

We, as Members of Congress, are Constitutional Officers.

This is an `Article I' moment.

The People's House must exercise its constitutional prerogative and conduct oversight.

The framers of the Constitution prioritized the legislature branch over the executive branch.

Recent public opinion polls reflect that 70 percent of the American people want the Special Counsel to continue his investigation.

The Framers of our Constitution wisely divided power through a system of checks and balances.

They anticipated a moment like this and vested power in the Congress to address, deter, and remedy a crisis caused by a Chief Executive who held himself to be above the law.

When future generations look back on this moment, and they consider that our democratic ideals and institutions were under enormous pressure from unsuspecting places, they will ask what we did when it mattered.

We must act.

Now, while we as Americans have our differing views, they are ours to solve, amongst ourselves.

Unfortunately, for all of us, the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation also includes the question of the extent to which the Trump campaign was helped in any way by the Russians.

Congress must not abdicate its Article I responsibility.

We must get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election.

We must permit Special Counsel Robert Mueller to continue his investigation.

We must seize the moment and pass H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee for this very important Special Order and for her incredible work in assuring justice in our country on so many, many fronts.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight because of deep concern regarding our Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who are attempting to kick the legs out from under Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in our elections last year.

Yes, they called Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to testify on whether bias has tainted that investigation.

You know what is interesting about this?

All of the intelligence agencies of our country agree that there was more than meddling in last year's elections.

I actually pray for Robert Mueller every night because what the involvement of Russia in our elections has meant, you know, that's not a country that really welcomes debate and open conversation. They kill their enemies.

Robert Mueller is going to get at the very core of what Russia is doing not just in our country, but what it will instruct us Russia is doing in Europe and many other places around the world.

I listened to some of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee today, and I just want to put this on the record: Robert Mueller has given his life to this country through his entire years of service.

I have never personally sat to dinner with this man or I don't think I have even shaken his hand, but I admire him for his true patriotism.

I watched some of the individuals on the Judiciary Committee today and wondered if they knew that he had been in the Marine Corps during Vietnam. He actually rose to the level of captain. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with the Combat V for victory. He is the recipient of the Purple Heart. He was a Navy and Marine Corps captain and got the Commendation Medal for his valor in combat.

How many of those individuals questioning his integrity can even compare to that with their little fingernail?

Combat Action Ribbon, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross. That was his early career.

As an attorney, he went into service to our country as an assistant U.S. district attorney on one coast, and then on the other coast as U.S. district attorney.

He is very evenhanded, and he worked his way up then in the Justice Department, rising to the level of Deputy Attorney General. He had been an Assistant Attorney General. His entire life has been spent in dangerous jobs.

To take on Russia, you put your own life in someone else's hands, actually. I can read a list--but I won't tonight--of all of the leaders and rising leaders of countries that wish to be free that Russia has summarily killed, for which there is no justice.

Madam Speaker, I rise somewhat out of outrage tonight listening to some of our colleagues here who demanded that we disband Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Counsel Mueller is a Republican. I should not like him for that reason, right, because I am a Democrat? But I know there is something bigger to him, and that is defending the American people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has put his life on the line since he was a teenager for this country.

Our country was founded on the principle of equality under the law. Our democracy, in the safeguarding of those principles, depends on genuine free elections. Not only must we pass laws here that assure that, but they have to be enforced.

We have to unequivocally confirm the truth behind the extent of Russian meddling in our election. That is what we need. We know they did. Now we want to know every piece of it.

How did they hack those voting machines? How did they use special ads that appeared around the country targeted to special audiences?

We have to restore the faith of the American people in their very vote in order to maintain this democratic republic.

Throughout his career, Special Counsel Mueller has proven himself time and time and time and time again to be a man of integrity.

I might say, this comes from a woman who tried to become an FBI agent when she was in college and was rejected not because she didn't have the academic abilities, but because in those days they didn't admit women to the FBI. Times have changed a lot, but I know that Robert Mueller is the best that America has.

Due process is one of the most carefully guarded of our constitutional protections, and we must see this investigation through to its ultimate end.

There can be no chicken hawks in this House or those who point fingers whose careers do not demonstrate the kind of patriotism Robert Mueller has demonstrated throughout his career.

Madam Speaker, I was actually shocked at how the questioning went this afternoon without the kind of respect and understanding of what it takes to preserve a republic that is free and independent of outside meddling.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to speak. I am embarrassed at some of the questions that the Republican majority has been hammering over in the Judiciary Committee and some of the other committees as the investigation intensifies and becomes more complete. The American people have a right to know.

I guess the question every American has to ask: In whose hands would you place your life? A man who has served this country, who is now, I believe, 73 years old--over 70 years old?

He has proved everything, but he has proven also that he has been a total patriot.

I would ask the same of those who so frivolously waste their words in efforts to try to suppress an investigation that we know is essential to the preservation of our vote and our freedoms.